Can I still be Catholic if I don’t necessarily believe in everything the church teaches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NurseZia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Limoncello4021 said:
Do you say the Rosary every day? It will quickly lead you to the full truth.
Click to expand...
I second this.
My devotion to the Rosary has opened me up to accepting many things I did not earlier believe or understand.
I now have a more full understanding of a lot of difficult truths in the Church thanks to Mary’s prayers.
For instance, the Church’s views on contraception (which I used to totally disagree with) are now very clear and understandable to me.
And I, for one, am thankful that God’s gift of purgatory exists.
 
Last edited:
redbetta said:
It can be really confusing on an online forum for someone on the outside looking in if people claiming to be Catholic are giving answers that go against Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Personally I woudn’t worry too much about that. Online forums, by their nature, should never be considered the final answer to any one question. This forum comes with a disclaimer that what are being discussed for the most part are opinions. It’s doubtful, too, that the original poster would jump into many discussions to claim their own perceptions as representative of the Magisterium. For the serious inquirer it’s very easy to check up on anything questionable. 🙂
 
No, they are not being dishonest, they are Catholic by nature of their Baptism. Period.

They may not be “good” Catholics, but they are Catholic.
 
NurseZia said:
My main issues are that I question the existence of Purgatory and I don’t believe in the Church’s stance on birth control.
Click to expand...
Maybe you do not understand them.

Purgatory is a state of the soul. (CCC 1031 "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. …) those souls in the state of purification attain heaven (CCC 1032 … so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God …).

Birth control can only be acceptable when it is a justified natural abstinence. Pope Pius the XII gave the beast explanation I think in Allocution to Midwives October 29, 1951:
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the <bonum prolis>. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
 
There are two meanings of the word Catholic: the technical definition as outlined by the Church and the secular definition that a Catholic is someone who practices Catholicism. I’m talking about the latter definition which is meant to help and be of use to the general public.
 
That’s news to me. Catholic is Catholic and one becomes Catholic when they are Baptised.

The Church does not make the distinction that you are, so maybe you should not either.
 
Honestly, the way I see this, it’s like whether or not to call someone who was born in the United States but grew up elsewhere American. While they are technically US citizens by birth right, for all practical purposes, they are not American. It is possible for a word to have a practical meaning and a technical one.
 
I think the question is…what is the minimum essential beliefs one must confess and believe in order that through baptism one may actually be considered to be a Catholic rather than say…“pick any other religion or Christian denomination” which believes in the practice of baptism? I would assume that in order for the baptism to be valid one would have to actually believe in what the baptism represents. The indelible mark upon the soul after baptism would presumably be placed there at the souls pinnacle of belief and then remain even if afterwards - after the baptism at ones pinnacle of belief - the good Catholic should slip into disbelief of some of its practices or become “lazy” in their actual practice, what some would call not “Catholic enough”. So the question remains “What minimum belief in what Catholics believe does one have to adhere to in order to be considered capable of being legitimately baptized into the catholic faith?”
 
This is more a Trumpian argument than a constitutionally valid one; but I get your point.
 
How is this Trumpian? Is it because I believe there is more to being an American than what’s on your passport?
 
The infant being Baptized does not have to believe anything. Their parent’s desire and willingness to make an effort to raise the child in the faith is all that is needed.
 
Last edited:
For that reason I think infant baptism is ridiculous. However that being besides the point…someone involved in the process of baptism has to believe something or else the whole process would be meaningless. In this case lets take it to be the parents…or the parents, parents, or the priest…or go clear back to the riverside with John and stop splitting hairs here. What’s the minimum that one needs to believe in order to be considered legitimately a Catholic as distinguished from a non-Catholic person?
 
Sure, buffet Christianity is the rage! If it were not, the pews would be filled with large families of more than thee 2.5 kids we see if the teaching on contraception was actually followed.
 
If your conscience tells you it is a mortal sin to go against any Church teaching then you must never do so.

But it is my experience that many Catholics are not built like that and experience God and Church differently. Their conscience sometimes tells them to act in a way that seems to contradict the judgements of Popes and Catechisms. Their conscience does not lash them that that they are sinning mortally by doing so. And it seems to me that the Church does not condemn such under pain of mortal sin - though excommunication may well result.

In the past saints and holy persons have been excommunicated or punished by various Church authorities - and later reinstated. Thomas Aquinas for example.
 
setarcos said:
What’s the minimum that one needs to believe in order to be considered legitimately a Catholic as distinguished from a non-Catholic person?
Click to expand...
One needs to be Baptized. That’s all.
Now, in order to be a practicing Catholic in good standing with the Church one must ascent to all she teaches, but even if one does not, they are still, and always will be, Catholic by nature of their Baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top